A
s a columnist writing
about digital governance
and
data
security,
I
sometimes wonder if
my readers actually
care
about
what
happens to their online
personal information.
Amidst
all
of
the
recent
headlines
about
cybercrime,
data
breaches
and
data exposure, it is
hard to come to grips
with what is actually
at stake. These events
seem far off and abstract, and the
chance of it happening is so slim
that it could never happen to you,
right?
To some degree, this view
is pretty accurate. According
to Facebook’s second quarter
earnings report that came out in
July 2018, there were about 2.23
billion monthly average users
of the social network. During
the recent data security breach
Facebook reported to its users
this September, the company
reset the access tokens for over 50
million affected accounts, as well
as 40 million additional accounts
as
a
precautionary
measure.
The 4 percent of users who did
receive a security message should
consider themselves unlucky, but
on the whole they did not have
much to worry about. As of now,
Facebook reports that no private
messaging was accessed, and
no credit card information was
stolen. Instead, hackers exploited
a vulnerability in the social
network developer’s application
programming interfaces, which
allows software developers to tap
into Facebook’s data. The hackers
stole information linked to a
user’s profile page such as name,
hometown and gender.
Although
Facebook’s
reputation suffered as a result
of the incident, Facebook users
like you and I walked away
from the incident unscathed
and
ultimately
indifferent.
There wasn’t a renewal of the
#deleteFacebook movement that
drew so much attention after the
Cambridge Analytica scandal,
and the coverage on national news
networks
was
overshadowed
by updates on the Kavanaugh
confirmation. That being said,
there is a chance something like
this could happen again, and
affected users should consider
themselves lucky — but not too
lucky — it was not much worse.
Do
you
have
personal
information online hackers could
use to steal your identity? The
answer
is
probably
overwhelmingly “yes,”
and the fact is this
actually happens all
the time. The Identity
Theft Resource Center
reported there were
1,579 data breaches
in 2017. In addition,
about
14.2
million
credit card numbers
were exposed in 2017,
an increase of 44.7
percent from the year prior, as
well as around 158 million Social
Security numbers exposed, an
increase of over eight times the
figure in 2016.
The numerous data breaches
are alarming not only because
of the sheer number of people
affected, but also due to the high
growth rate in the prevalence of
such devastating events. Credit
card fraud, which usually involves
a single credit account, is serious,
but identity theft can be much
more damaging. When a hacker
steals your identity, they can
destroy your financial security by
opening multiple lines of credit,
ruining your credit score and
making it nearly impossible to get
a loan or apply for a new card. If
you are still not convinced data
breaches represent a real problem
for society, then I have some
unfortunate news that may hit
close to home. In 2017, the state
of Michigan was ranked number
one for highest per capita rate of
reported identity theft, with 151
complaints per 100,000 residents.
If you seek a pleasant peninsula
that
protects
your
personal
information,
look
elsewhere
(perhaps Florida, which comes
in second at 149 complaints per
100,000).
Do you care about democracy
and
the
upcoming
midterm
elections? If so, data security is
even more relevant to you. Last
spring the country was inundated
with
news
surrounding
the
political
consulting
firm
Cambridge Analytica and its
misuse
of
Facebook
users’
personal information to influence
the 2016 presidential election.
The researchers at Cambridge
Analytica
used
information
gathered
from
a
personality
quiz to scrape private data from
profiles of people who took the
quiz as well as their friends. This
data was then used to market
sometimes
racist,
xenophobic
and
anti-immigrant
messages
directly to users based on their
constructed psychological profile.
Facebook permitted this, and
has since shut the service down,
but the fact that it was going on
at all is cause for concern. The
lack of understanding, oversight
and control users have over their
personal information is nothing
but daunting.
Despite the massive imbalance
between big tech companies and
us, there are a few ways users
can assert a bit more control over
their digital presence. The first
way is to write to your senator,
congressman or elected official to
do something about it. As of today,
there is no single, overarching
data protection legislation in
the United States. Instead, data
protection is regulated using a
tangled web of state and federal
laws, with the FTC primarily
overseeing “unfair or deceptive
practices” related to personal
information.
In
response
to
recent data abuses by Silicon
Valley, Senator Mark Warner,
D-Va., is fighting vehemently for
more stringent regulation for
“information
fiduciaries”
who
hold large amounts of user data.
There
are
also
behavioral
changes you can make to better
secure your accounts. Create
a strong, unique password for
every new account you make, and
change it now and then — wouldn’t
it be disastrous if one hacked
account led to all your accounts
being hacked? Take the time to
read security alerts. Research
a good password manager that
can help you stay organized and
protect your information. In
short, take whatever small steps
you can to ensure what you put
online is a little bit safer.
But all of that is up to you. The
best case scenario is that you will
never experience a hack and enjoy
your time on the internet with no
problems at all. The worst case
scenario is that by 2040 quantum
computers will break the internet
as we know it and render all of our
information totally unprotected.
In the meantime, though, let us
all make an effort to be more
attentive towards our precious
personal
information
so
we
can enjoy whatever time on the
internet we have left.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Monday, October 29, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Leading the free world
P
resident Donald Trump
has finally called out Saudi
Arabia for the assassination
of Jamal Khashoggi earlier this
month. Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident
and Washington Post columnist
living in exile, was gruesomely
murdered while visiting the Saudi
Arabian consulate in Turkey. The
sloppy hit, almost assuredly ordered
by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince
Mohammed Bin Salman, elicited
sharp international condemnation.
In the weeks since, Saudi Arabia
has awkwardly tried to dodge
accountability for the operation, first
denying that Khashoggi died inside
the consulate, then claiming his death
occurred accidentally during a fight
and now blaming his death on rogue
actors within the state’s security
apparatus.
For American observers, outrage
at the assassination and shoddy cover-
up was coupled by disbelief as Trump
for weeks refused to acknowledge,
much less condemn, Saudi Arabia’s
brazen and appalling abuse of power.
Trump originally criticized other
countries’ and corporations’ swift
criticism of Saudi Arabia and floated
the “rogue killers” theory that
Saudi Arabia later came to adopt. As
corporate and political leaders around
the world withdrew en masse from a
planned Saudi investment conference,
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin
reaffirmed his plans to attend. It
took another week of feet-dragging,
during which Trump dispatched
multiple officials to meet with Saudi
and Turkish officials, before Trump
finally cancelled Mnuchin’s trip and
issued a clear denunciation of the
killing.
To be fair, the president’s
eventual
condemnation
of
the
assassination is a welcome reversal,
but his delay in doing so reinforces his
administration’s troubling reluctance
to call out the autocratic nations. If not
checked, Trump’s continued public
admiration for some of the world’s
most ruthless dictators threatens to
degrade the United States’ status as
preeminent leader of the free world
and dilute American support for
democracy and human rights abroad.
Trump has consistently praised
dictators and expressed respect for
their style of rule both during his
campaign and after taking office.
Alarmingly, Trump doesn’t just flatter
America’s autocratic allies — some of
his most effusive praises are reserved
for hostile adversaries. In 2017, Trump
invited President Rodrigo Duterte of
the Philippines to the White House
and characterized his crackdown
on drugs, which has consisted of the
extrajudicial killings of thousands,
as a “great job.” In a June 2018
interview, Trump downplayed North
Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s brutal
repression of his people, instead
referring to him as a “tough” and
“very smart” leader. And of course
there is Trump’s frequent praising
of Russian President Vladimir Putin,
whom he has called “far more” of a
leader than former President Barack
Obama.
Contrast those statements with
the criticism and vitriol, often trade-
related, that Trump has tossed
at democratic allies. He’s called
Canadian Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau “dishonest” and “weak,” and
critiqued German Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s immigration policies, which
have little to no effect on the United
States, as “insane.”
However, it is unrealistic to
perpetually criticize or disassociate
with every state that restricts political
freedoms or violates human rights,
especially in the Middle East. Saudi
Arabia is a key strategic partner
and collaboration with the Saudi
government is crucial to pursuing
our interests in the region, namely
suppressing terrorism and countering
the influence of hostile states such
as Iran. The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet
is headquartered in Bahrain, which
certainly contributed to the U.S.’s
silence when the autocratic kingdom
ruthlessly crushed a popular uprising
in 2011.
The bottom line is that being one
of the world’s largest superpowers
necessitates
cooperation
with
unscrupulous states who don’t share
our values. But this doesn’t require
us to ignore the most egregious
violations, such as the Khashoggi
killing, nor does it require America
to abandon its commitment to
promoting democracy around the
world.
This
commitment
isn’t
just
implied — the State Department’s own
mission statement is to “Create a more
secure, democratic, and prosperous
world for the benefit of the American
people
and
the
international
community.” America’s record of
supporting democracy worldwide is
far from sterling, especially during the
Cold War era, when the U.S. routinely
supported authoritarian states in
order to counter the influence of
the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the
goal of democratizing the world and
protecting human rights is still a
worthy one that should be pursued
when at all possible, which is why
Trump’s repeated praise of dictators
is so alarming. The U.S. prides itself
on being the leader of the free world,
and even though many on the left
believe that mantle has been passed
to Merkel, they still hope to reclaim
it following Trump’s presidency.
Trump, and his successors, would be
wise to realize that it is hard to be the
leader of the free world if you do not
show any interest in promoting a free
world.
Why you should care about personal data
ALEXANDER SATOLA | COLUMN
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
Alexander Satola can be reached at
apsatola@umich.edu.
TALIA KATZ | OP-ED
On Pittsburgh and anti-Semitism
F
our years ago, Jordan, my
big brother, graduated from
the University of Michigan
with a degree in economics and
moved to Pittsburgh. He relocated
to a strange new city where he did
not know a soul. One of the hardest
experiences for Jews living away
from family and friends is the Jewish
high holidays. Luckily for Jordan,
though, the Tree of Life synagogue
opened its doors, giving him a warm
community and a place to pray.
This past Saturday, a deranged
man entered that same synagogue
during morning services, shouted
“All Jews must die!” and took 11 lives
of that same community.
People are quick to universalize
this
tragedy,
posting
about
gun control, white supremacy,
nationalism and the like. But we
need to pause and address the root of
this hate crime: anti-Semitism.
There is no denying that anti-
Semitism has plagued our world for
millennia. Jews have been expelled
from countries more than a hundred
times. From the Spanish Inquisition
to the Crusades and the Holocaust,
Jews have been targeted and
slaughtered. From the Black Plague
to the infamous Dreyfus Trial and
Nazi Germany, Jews have been
blamed for societal ills and others’
misfortunes.
Despite
generations
of
persecution,
genocide
and
expulsion, what has ensured the
Jewish community’s survival is a
goal-oriented determination, rooted
in individual responsibility and
chutzpa (a Yiddish word meaning
“shameless
audacity”).
After
experiencing the worst systematic
genocide in human history, the
Jewish community launched an
attitudinal revolution against its own
unhappy past. Survivors sought to
erase the image of the “ghetto Jews,”
willingly accepting their demise. Out
of this tragedy emerged the Jewish
state of Israel, which is now one of
the most prosperous and forward-
thinking nations in the world.
Despite
the
deep-seeded
hatred for Jews across the globe, a
sentiment of strength and communal
perseverance has and must continue
to direct the Jewish community. I
therefore do not want to participate
in the ongoing competition for “most
victimized group” and undermine
others’ oppression.
What I want to highlight,
though, is the blatant double
standard both in this community
and in the mainstream media.
All
manifestations
of
Islamophobia and racism are evil
and unacceptable, and journalists
should continue to expose these
hateful acts. However, hate crimes
against
Muslims
are
reported
more than twice as much as those
against Jews. Without adjusting
for population size, though, the FBI
reports twice as many hate crimes
against Jews (684) than against
Muslims (307). 2016 FBI data shows
Jews are three times more likely
than African Americans and 1.5
times more likely than Muslims to
be a victim of a hate crime.
The Anti-Defamation League
2017 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents
found the number of anti-Semitic
incidents in the United States rose
57 percent in 2017. In fact, Jews
experienced more religious-based
hate crimes than all other religious
groups
combined.
Despite
its
prevalence, anti-Semitic incidents
are still grossly underreported.
Anti-Semitism is not just a
characteristic of fringe groups. In
fact, it comes from the far left, the far
right and everywhere in-between.
Prominent religious leader Louis
Farrakhan repeatedly calls Jews
“termites” and “Satanic.” Last year’s
“Dyke March” in Chicago asked
Jewish participants to leave because
they displayed a Star of David on their
pride flags. Georgia Congressman
Hank
Johnson
called
Jewish
Israelis “vermin” and “termites.”
After protestors marched through
Charlottesville yelling “Jews will not
replace us,” our president declared
there were “some very fine people on
both sides.”
I could also explicate the
rampant anti-Semitism in Europe
and Islamic countries, but then this
article would become a book.
I do not seek to minimize the
suffering of other discriminated
communities. All manifestations of
identity-based hatred and violence
should and must be addressed.
However, Jewish identities are
excluded from social justice rhetoric
and today’s trendy doctrine of
intersectionality. Outside of the
Jewish community, the relative
silence is deafening.
This past Sunday, Holocaust
survivors
and
their
children
traveled to Ann Arbor to tell their
stories to students. One participant
was afraid to go inside the building
because
the
luncheon
lacked
armed security. The United States
is no 1930s Europe, but Jews who
escaped gas chambers and death
camps should not continue to live in
fear because of who they are.
If you want to address identity-
based hatred, then do not ignore
anti-Semitism.
This
festering
disease is too prevalent to overlook.
In light of the tragedy in
Pittsburgh,
though,
religious
leaders, both Christian and Muslim,
have fundraised and lent their
support to the Jewish community.
Just as the Tree of Life synagogue
treated my brother like family, so
has Pittsburgh’s Christian and
Muslim community treated its
Jewish neighbors.
We should similarly treat all
persecuted minorities like brothers
and sisters in times of vulnerability.
ALEX
SATOLA
Talia Katz is a senior in the Ford
School of Public Policy.
L
ast year, as a freshman,
I was so focused on
receiving good grades
that I often prioritized my
academic
performance
over
having fun. As a result, one of
my goals for this year is to attend
more events, rather than simply
attending class and sometimes
venturing to the library when
I want a change of scenery
for studying. So far this year,
I’ve attended comedian Hasan
Minhaj’s “Before the Storm”
show at the Michigan Theater,
author Viet Thanh Nguyen’s
lecture
titled
“Race,
War,
and Refugees” and an Eagles
concert last week in Detroit. I
also purchased a ticket to attend
“A Conversation with Michelle
Obama” in December.
Attending all these events
has led me to notice there are
rarely any people who come
alone. While I did see a few
people who didn’t appear to be
with any friends or family, most
people came with at least one
or two other companions. This
makes sense, considering how,
nowadays, almost every event
seems to be a social one — there
are people who are reluctant
to even go to the bathroom by
themselves. However, I think
that there is value in going to
events without other people.
I attended Minhaj’s show
alone. None of my friends
really knew who Minhaj was (a
travesty!), so I felt bad asking
them to purchase a ticket to
see him. While I was initially
worried about going alone, I
found going by myself ended
up being more enjoyable than
if I had gone with a friend. I
not only got someone to trade
tickets with me so he could sit
closer to his friends, resulting
in me moving from around the
19th row to the fourth, I was
also able to truly focus on the
show. I didn’t have to worry
about whether my friend was
also having a good time or
feel obligated to interact with
another person. I left the show
feeling glad I came alone. This
led me to attend Nguyen’s
lecture alone, and I had a
similarly positive experience
there.
I
went
to
the
Eagles
concert with my family, and
the experience was far more
stressful and complicated than
going to the Minhaj event.
Before I went to see Minhaj,
all I had to do was purchase
the ticket, go to the venue and
find a seat. For the concert,
however, I had to find four seats
together in a section everyone
was fine sitting in and check
with everyone to make sure
their schedules were free the
day of the concert. The day of
the performance, all of us had
to wait for each other to finish
getting ready, and once we
finally got in the car and arrived
at the venue, we all had to wait
for each other when we ordered
food or went to the bathroom.
During
the
performance,
I
had to listen to my family
members try to talk to me when
I just wanted to focus on the
performance, and there were
times when I tried talking to
them when they just wanted to
focus on the performance.
However, I am still glad I
didn’t go to the Eagles concert
alone, because I think concerts
are
much
more
enjoyable
for people when they have
companions who aren’t afraid
to dance and sing along with
them. I probably would not
want to attend a sporting
event without a friend, either,
because cheering alone can feel
awkward. In addition, going to a
venue far away and late at night
can be dangerous for people
going alone.
While
these
are
among
several valid reasons for not
wanting to go to an event alone,
feeling as though attending
an
event
alone
is
socially
unacceptable or doomed to end
in boredom is not an acceptable
reason. As harsh as it may
seem, the truth is that being
around friends or family can
be annoying, and being alone is
often the least stressful option.
Because I didn’t know any of
the
other
people
attending
Minhaj’s show or Nguyen’s
lecture, I had an anonymity
that allowed me to keep mostly
to myself and focus solely on the
performance.
In short, not every event
needs to be a social one, and
it’s OK not to be surrounded
by a gaggle of friends wherever
you go. Sometimes, the best
company is no company at all.
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN
Leave your friends at home
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu.